I have been reading the thread for a while now and overall the idea is fantastic.There are some sentences that I’m not understanding very well or aren’t written with the most scientificly correct terminology. I think overall it’s clear what the idea is, though I will try to correct/pinpoint some sentences.
This is written vaguely, respiration exclusively converts glucolitic metabolites and derivates into CO2 generating a potential capable of reconverting ADP into ATP, but the whole process of breaking down e.g. Proteins and Polysaccharides into amino acids and simple sugars, respectively, involves quite a lot of metabolic paths and not only respiration. Probably a better idea would be that nutrients are fully oxidized, wether it is by aerobic respiration or any other metabolic pathway. I know you want to keep it simple and straight to the point.
Yeap, keeping it simple without losing scientific accuracy.
Again here you take into account only the aerobic respiration and usage of O2 as electron acceptor (maybe I got a bit technical here ), and, even though as we know today all eukaryotic/large organisms use aerobic respiration we can’t know what would evolution bring out in another planet.
Pretty cool, though this probably will arise naturally once the ATP consumption is balanced and proportional to the number of cells/mass.
A lot of oxygen does not necessarily translate into a quicker respiration. And there are problems when respirating too much, during the 80’s the leading theory about why do we age was that too much oxygen destroyed our cells and it is partially true, so … yeap, too much oxygen is not necessarily beneficial either. I would say that the oxygen avaliability is a crucial factor to the organism’s size/mass.